Comments

I don’t see the PA taking this deal, as i’m sure that it certainly includes a roll-back via escrow, but with the NHL officially going to 50-50, as many assumed the final deal would eventually be at, there will be pressure for the NHLPA to work off this.

I don’t see the PA taking this deal, as i’m sure that it certainly includes a roll-back via escrow, but with the NHL officially going to 50-50, as many assumed the final deal would eventually be at, there will be pressure for the NHLPA to work off this.

Bingo.

The NHL has now made the offer the NHLPA can’t refuse, and the one I thought was coming. If a 50-50 across the board split to preserve the 82 game season won’t get the players to bite, it is officially their fault the lockout will continue from this point forward. Not totally and completely their fault, but 65-35.

I’m betting that Gary Bettman’s 50-50 is a lot different from the NHLPA’s 50-50, in terms of HRR definition, so i dont think this will be so hard for the players to refuse.

I also think that the owners indicating the desire to start the full season ASAP implies that the players have some leverage.

i would assume the NHLPA counters with either less of a reduction, or for more coming out of future growth, say immediately going to 53, and then sliding downward as growth continues. Plus, i am sure they will demand more revenue sharing.

I also think that the owners indicating the desire to start the full season ASAP implies that the players have some leverage.

Or it’s just a ploy to ensure the PA has as much egg on its face as possible once they turn this down. “See”, they will say, “we tried to give the fans a full season, but the greedy players would not hear of it”

Having said that, I hope like hell your scenario is accurate - that the owners are feeling pressure to start the season. That changes the entire dynamic.

Only if you assume 50-50 truly means 50-50. The definition of HRR, and perhaps more importantly, what is NOT HRR, is probably more critical. Until we know that, there’s plenty of spin, legitimate and otherwise, to be had.

At any rate, this is some progress. Will wait to see articles with full summaries before I comment too far, but if the tweets are indicative, this puts the two sides in the same arena for the first time. Of course, how they get from point A to point B on the reduction in the players’ share is the thing that will make this offer legitimate or will make it meaningless, so that’s what I want to find out about.

I will be disappointed if this NHL offer doesn’t incorporate many or most of the revenue sharing enhancements the NHLPA did in their offer, because without that there is no fundamental, systemic change that fixes what ails the NHL. It will just be another band-aid, unless the league succumbs to the tight floor-to-ceiling gap and is willing to live with less parity.

TORONTO—The NHL made a proposal for a new Collective Bargaining Agreement on Tuesday, one designed to allow an 82-game schedule for 2012-13 NHL season to take place.

“We very much want to preserve a full 82-game season and in that light we made a proposal, an offer really,” Commissioner Gary Bettman said. “It is our best shot at preserving an 82-game regular season and [Stanley Cup] Playoffs.”

Commissioner Bettman announced the proposal after he and Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly held an hour-long meeting with the National Hockey League Players’ Association Executive Director Don Fehr and Special Counsel Steve Fehr at the Union office.

Bettman said that the offer, which splits hockey-related revenue at 50-50, is contingent upon a full season being played and suggested that the season could begin Nov. 2. He also said the League is not asking for salary rollbacks from the players.

“We’re focused on getting the season started on Nov. 2. That’s what this offer was about.”

Or it’s just a ploy to ensure the PA has as much egg on its face as possible once they turn this down. “See”, they will say, “we tried to give the fans a full season, but the greedy players would not hear of it”

I’m hoping this is something that can realistically be worked off of, but knowing Bettman, it could just be a trap, a deal that sounds nice, but could involve big rollbacks through escrow, a skewed definition of HRR and no increased revenue sharing, things the PA would be loath to agree to and it would allow Bettman to claim the players killed the season.

Or it’s just a ploy to ensure the PA has as much egg on its face as possible once they turn this down. “See”, they will say, “we tried to give the fans a full season, but the greedy players would not hear of it”

Bingo. Totally agree.

A) It’s a fair offer. It’s comparable to what the other pro leagues all get, and better than at least 2 of them if not all three.

B) It is a PR coup. That’s why Fehr immediately came out with conciliatory language rather than blasting it like he’s blasted every other plan, including the one that took player share to 48% instead of 50%, as though there was some monumental difference.

C) Its the best offer the NHLPA is ever going to get. Fehr knows this. He knows the numbers and he knows playing 6 years under this offer is better than every other possible outcome where a year is lost due to a lockout., including getting 57%.

Only if you assume 50-50 truly means 50-50.

It’s 50-50 of ‘net revenue’, whatever sport-specific term is used, just like it is in the NFL and the NBA. The NHLPA got 50-50 of ‘gross revenue’ last year or pretty close, and that was with them getting 57% of ‘net revenue’.

I agree with the general point, though. The devil is always in the details. If Bettman or Fehr can sneak in a couple codicils, that’s where some real work can be done on either side.

The last CBA illustrated Bettman is an idiot when it comes to forecasting consequences, so I give Fehr a Wilt Chamberlain-sized leg up in this area.

I will be disappointed if this NHL offer doesn’t incorporate many or most of the revenue sharing enhancements the NHLPA did in their offer, because without that there is no fundamental, systemic change that fixes what ails the NHL.

What ails the NHL is a bunch of teams in crappy markets without enough fans that care about hockey, coupled with a salary floor that requires clubs to spend to loss-levels just to be legal.

The nice thing a 50-50 split will do in the shortish term is lower both the cap and the floor. That will buy a bunch of teams 3-5 million of space that they won’t be forced to spend on salaries.

Doesn’t that mean these “teams in crappy markets without enough fans that care about hockey” will be allowed to gasp for breath for another few years?

Exactly. That’s part of the reason the NHL was going after HRR points instead of RS stuff. It makes every team more money (or loses them less in some cases), so all the owners will like it.

Revenue sharing, which takes money from rich teams and gives it to poor teams, is something that all owners are not going to like, namely the ones who have to pay the revenue sharing.

So the NHL throws an extra 20-40 mil into the RS pot which those owners aren’t going to mind because they don’t have to spend as much on salaries. Whatever the RS increase is, it’ll end up equalling less of a hit to the big revenue teams than what they’re going to recover from getting 7 points of HRR back.

What ails the NHL is a bunch of teams in crappy markets without enough fans that care about hockey, coupled with a salary floor that requires clubs to spend to loss-levels just to be legal.

The nice thing a 50-50 split will do in the shortish term is lower both the cap and the floor. That will buy a bunch of teams 3-5 million of space that they won’t be forced to spend on salaries.

It will be interesting to see what all comes up in details.

Posted by HockeyinHD on 10/16/12 at 01:53 PM ET

You are exactly right, but we know that the necessary combination of relocation and contraction to get a higher percentage of viable markets is just not realistic, at least not in anything sooner than a medium-to-long-term. So either revenue sharing, or open up the spread between the floor and ceiling and give up on the financially enforced parity crap.

You are exactly right, but we know that the necessary combination of relocation and contraction to get a higher percentage of viable markets is just not realistic, at least not in anything sooner than a medium-to-long-term. So either revenue sharing, or open up the spread between the floor and ceiling and give up on the financially enforced parity crap.

Exactly! Relocation may happen at some point, but it’ll be a measure of last resort and contraction, no matter how much some fans may want it, will never happen again. Either increased revenue or eliminate the cap floor and accept that the NHL will have some permanent bottom feeders.

all those people who gave up on the NHL a week ago are never ever coming back,

Too bad most people said that if the season is lost they are gone and it looks like the NHL is proposing an 82 game schedule, therefore no games lost.

And since your premise has always been that the people that don’t come back are so few and far between compared to the masses that it would have no impact on the secondary market. So according to you logic, the demand so far exceeds the supply that lockout could ever hurt the demand which sets market price. So good luck on Stub Hub!

I don’t see this as a “homerun” deal just because the owners have saked for a 50/50 split especially since we do not know how HRR is defined. If it is still a 7% drop in year one and every other change is a concession by the players on contracts then nothing has really changed. When negotiating, you usually get something for giving something up. I find it hard to believe that Fehr will give up 7% of revenue and also give up on contract lengths etc etc.

It’s the code for when you make something up and pretend someone else said it.

All things considered, I’d be happy to put it to a vote as to whether that should be called J.Jing or HiHDing.

Or we could just call it “creating a strawman”, which was the phrase that already existed for what you’re saying. I’m in favor of that.

You see, what I actually do is called “paraphrasing for clarity”. It’s a conversation tactic that has to be used when discussing things with people who have a tentative grasp on the words they like to use (such as “demonstrable” and “mediocre”). It doesn’t involve making up things to pretend somebody else said something; it’s making sure they didn’t mean the dumb thing they actually said when they used an ill-fitting string of words to say it.

Sadly, I’ve found that a great deal of what I’ve done has simply confirmed my fears.